Please enable javascript to view this site.

Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Movie Reviews and Ratings

Jack Rico

By

2010/06/06 at 12:00am

‘Sex and the City 3’: A Trilogy or a Tragedy?

06.6.2010 | By |

'Sex and the City 3': A Trilogy or a Tragedy?

Sex and the City’ has been nothing short of a phenomenon.  From the onset, the series, the girls and the city they lived in was an immediate hit, drawing millions of viewers to HBO, later TBS and now the Box Office. The draw is one that is still strong today 12 years later.  Proof of this can be seen on Perry Street in the West Village, where one is almost guaranteed to see fans, mostly young and middle aged women, posing in front of a chained-off townhouse with a sign reading “NO TRESPASSING”.

After some deconstruction of the phenomenon,  I believe it really boils down to 3 things: fabulousity, nostalgia and hope.

You can say whatever you want about the recent movie ‘Sex and the City 2’ … but one thing is for sure is that the power of the brand remains strong.  

So strong that I agree with Sarah Jessica that they should complete the trilogy with a third and final run.

My advice to her though is to remember the three things that made you.
1- Fabulousity. We want fabulousity but we want it to feel real. Abu Dhabi was fun, but in hindsight the Hamptons may have been more authentic.  
2- Nostalgia.  Tap into this powerful emotion, but do it remembering to be relevant today.  Why did we relate? who did we relate to? But keep it real. Don’t go over the top with the characters and don’t forget the times.
3- Hope. Here you have been nailing it.  At the end of the day, whatever twists and turns life puts in front of Carrie and her posse… they survive and thrive, holding their cosmos in bejeweled hands.

So here is to the final ‘Sex and the City 3.’  One with “NO TRESPASSING”.

Carrie Bradshaw's 'Apartment'

Karen Posada

By

2010/06/04 at 12:00am

Killers

06.4.2010 | By |

Killers

First thought: What the heck did I just watch? This movie has a multiple personality disorder, it doesn’t know if it wants to be a romantic-comedy or an action/adventure film. It tries to be well rounded by attempting to fulfill all these genres but it fails terribly.

The story is about Jen (Katherine Heigl) and Spencer (Ashton Kutcher). They meet in Nice, France, the beautiful French Riviera gives birth to their romance. Jen is on vacation with her parents Mr. & Mrs. Kornfeldt (Tom Selleck & Catherine O’Hara) who are extremely quirky; the dad is a control freak and the mom is drunk all the time. Spencer being a professional assassin is there on a mission. They have a cheesy first date where we are supposed to believe there are sparks, because Spencer quits his secret life to settle down and live the normal suburban life he’s dreamed of with Jen. 3 years down the line Jen abruptly finds out about Spencer’s secret life and they become fugitives running for their lives. In this journey they find out their lives and friends were not what they thought them to be and it comes to an awkward and sudden end.

If you dreamed of ever seeing Kutcher speaking French and being shirtless at the same time, your dream has come true. Kutcher carries the movie on his shoulders, which is not necessarily a good thing. I was surprised to actually like him in the action scenes, that’s to say the least of his acting skills though. Heigl’s character could not get any more annoying, she’s a spoiled rich girl that whines for most of the movie.

This movie simply isn’t entertaining enough to make it worth your while, it has very few funny moments and the only good scenes are the ones where there are fights. Not even the dark humor helps it and although they try hard to keep us in suspense the predictability is what over kills it.

Jack Rico

By

2010/06/04 at 12:00am

Splice

06.4.2010 | By |

Splice

‘Splice,’ is in this critic’s opinion, one of the worst, if not arguably the worst movie of 2010. There are so many wrong things with it on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin. Actually, I do know where to begin. Let’s start with the plotline that Warner Bros. has up on their press website for the film:

Superstar genetic engineers Clive (Adrien Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley) specialize in splicing DNA from different animals to create incredible new hybrids. Now they want to use human DNA in a hybrid that could revolutionize science and medicine. But when the pharmaceutical company that funds their research forbids it, Clive and Elsa secretly take their boldest experimentation underground — risking their careers by pushing the boundaries of science to serve their own curiosity and ambition. The result is Dren, an amazing, strangely beautiful creature of uncommon intelligence and an array of unexpected physical developments. At first, Dren (spelled ‘NERD’ backwards, wink, wink). exceeds their wildest dreams. But as she grows and learns at an accelerated rate, her existence threatens to become their worst nightmare.

The story sounds compelling and gripping, piquing ones interest of the outcome. Regrettably, when you finish experiencing this disjointed effort, the results are baffling and incomprehensible. There are numerous leaps of logic – instances when the protagonists act in a fashion that only characters in a comedy would. It’s as if the screenwriters wanted to hammer home how idiotic these scientists really are. Ultimately, our heroes actions in the second act are aberrations of consistent implausibilities.

The character of Elsa played by Sarah Polley is a vexing figure who is pigheaded, ambitious and arrogant. She’s not a likable character, you don’t root for her but rather against her. Her behavior towards volatile situations and tense moments are obtuse and supercilious. Brody on the other hand is cautious, correct in his ways, but eventually turns out to be a milksop of a man who lets his unstable woman take charge of critical situations and of his morals. The movie finally collapses when several Freudian occurrences transpire without any rhyme or reason. I can only describe them as some of the most preposterous, unlikely and outrageous twists I have seen in movies (‘Orphan’ by Spaniard director Jaume Collet-Serra comes a close second).

The fright horror we were putatively in for was diminished to only special effects editing and dimwitted risible scenes of absurdity, nothing more. Not once was I scared (unlike The Strangers or The House of The Devil recently). I kept placing my hands on my face, but in disbelief for the inanity unfolding before my very eyes. The trailer is partly the culprit. It misleads us into expecting a flat out terror film full of suspense building sequences matched with high-intense graphics. Rather, it delivers a science fiction drama of the likes of Species, to be exact. Horror is only a secondary thought here.

Guillermo Del Toro served as a producer and did a descent job in creating Dren and most of the special effects with the budgets he was provided. Director Vincenzo Natali shot a beautifully dark and mysterious production that is visually appealing, but the payoff is painful not only to the viewing experience but to the pocket as well. If you can, stay away from this film, unless you want to see how bad it is. That sometimes happens to me too.

Jack Rico

By

2010/06/04 at 12:00am

Get Him to the Greek

06.4.2010 | By |

Get Him to the Greek

Get Him To The Greek’ is perhaps the best comedy of the year… so far. It’s competition in 2010 doesn’t match up against it – MacGruber, Hot Tub Time Machine, Cop Out.  Even last year’s ‘Forgetting Sarah Marshall.’ is not as good. ‘Greek’ has much more likable and interesting characters and a mix of clever and low brow humor to titillate the senses. Also, the music industry is much more appealing and much more fun than the aforementioned flick.

‘Greek’ has nothing to do with mythology, but instead with a record company assistant (Jonah Hill) who is hired to accompany an out-of-control British rock star, Aldous Snow (Russell Brand), to his 10th anniversary concert at L.A.’s Greek Theater.

I’m not a big fan of British comedian Russell Brand due to the vexing complexity he is. But there is a side to him I like, I just don’t know if it is an act. The first bag of exasperating tricks he bundles is his uncontrollable zest for being annoying (I saw an interview with him on Craig Ferguson, hated him), an accent that doesn’t allow you to understand anything he says and I feel he has no charm on the mike (thought his hosting duties at an MTV Video Music Awards show was pretty lame). So why then did I like him in his first full length feature? Unbelievably, he stops being a bane nuisance and becomes contagiously eloquent with a marvelous rhetoric that can pounce any argument. So which one is he really? I like the Aldous Snow character much better and less the real Brand. But if he continues to create work that resembles Aldous’ nuances, logic and verbiage and dramatic layers, I’ll seriously consider becoming a fan. For now, I’m a swing voter. His character Aldous Snow, a caustic British musician, had his first appearance in ‘Forgetting Sarah Marshall.’ He was actually one of the highlights of that film along with Paul Rudd. I thoroughly enjoy his film performances.

Jonah Hill on his part, plays the innocent and impressionable Aaron Green, who is a fan of Aldous. I’ve also never been a fan of Hill, I just don’t think these guys are good actors. But again, Hill’s character surprised me. He nailed the personality of what guys trying to make it in the music industry are like and the humiliations they sometimes have to go through to get there. I worked in radio and MTV for several years and these execs really get a joy in making you suffer. This movie’s comedy relies on those moments that are very funny here in ‘Greek’.

There is this one funny scene in the limo where Hill is taking Brand to the Today Show. It’s perhaps the funniest piece in the film along with the ‘Jeffrey’ moment. You must watch out for them.

P. Diddy is good, but he’s no actor and makes Hill and Brand look like Academy Award winners. He is not as good as other critics and bloggers say he is. He has some good lines, but they could’ve been magic in the hands of a more experienced actor like Michael Shannon in ‘The Runaways’ (he was brilliant in that film).

Judd Apatow and Jason Segel are the producers of ‘Greek’ and did a damn good job. The director Nicholas Stoller created some snappy and attractive shots that I’m sure you’ll guys enjoy whole heartedly. I didn’t necessarily laugh in every single scene, but I must confess I had fun seeing all the tomfoolery unfold on this poor kid Aaron (Hill). The pop-rock soundtrack was infectious and catchy and I entertained myself, which is the point of going to the movies. I recommend you spend your flow and go with your friends. If you don’t like Brand or Hill, you’ll like them after you see this movie. Good times!

Jack Rico

By

2010/06/03 at 12:00am

Marmaduke

06.3.2010 | By |

Marmaduke

When I was a kid I used to watch ‘Marmaduke’ on Saturday morning cartoons. This film adaptation is not as entertaining as the former, but nevertheless kids should have a frolicking time with it. Marmaduke is not meant to entertain adults, it’s for children who are 7-10 years old or even tweens at 12-14. So any grown men and women who go to see this film need to understand that the gags and dance moves from these dogs are meant for infants. If you enjoy kids movies, more power to you.

The plot. A suburban family moves to a new neighborhood with their large yet lovable Great Dane, who has a tendency to wreak havoc in his own oblivious way.

This is one of those few cat and dog movies where humans take a back seat to them. I would say it is 80% animals 20% humans. There is hardly any acting from real people in this film, which is why you can’t really knock the acting because there barely is any. Most of the work comes from the voices of Owen Wilson, Emma Stone, George Lopez and Kiefer Sutherland. I thought Owen fit the personality of the star dog perfectly. Lopez I think is always hilarious with the stereotypical Mexican accent as Marmaduke’s cat friend.

The situational comedy in the movie is modestly fun and you can tell director Tom Dey (“Failure to Launch”) makes something of an effort to make it likable. Overall, Marmaduke is what it is – a project using a familiar American brand name to make some money from it. Did it work? Not enough for me to tell you to run to the theater to see it. This is definitely a DVD property.

Namreta Kumar

By

2010/06/02 at 12:00am

Raajneeti

06.2.2010 | By |

Raajneeti

Raajneeti is a lengthy and problematic film. Although it tried to read like a modern Mahabharat, it ends up being a poor man’s version of The Great Indian Novel (by Shashi Tharoor).

 

For starters if you have no interest in politics don’t watch the film for the hype of the star-studded performance. No one truly shines with a solid performance, anyway. For the solid list of character actors the film is predicated on, not one character elicits enough sympathy within the audience. This may be because of the base problem in the script itself: everyone seems to either be playing multiple characters from the Mahabharat or the principal motivations have all been skewed bordering on disbelief.

 

Furthermore without a working knowledge of the Mahabharat it is rather difficult to follow the film. And if you have anything greater than a working knowledge you are sure to be disappointed by the bullet point version of the story. In trying to make a modern retelling Rajneeti lost both the original and the modern. Some of the language will definitely be lost on those who are not Hindi scholars and the rest to those who know little English.

 

Don’t look towards the music to be of any help either. Traditionally Bollywood film length and drama has been broken by the musical song and dance, Rajneeti has one ill placed and rather short rendition. Unfortunately the background score doesn’t win this film any favors either, as it is over dramatic and reclaims the scene for itself.

 

Stripped down to its core the film lacks proper development, however it does make the audience think. If it is true that you learn more from mistakes than success, this film forces everyone who watches it to think about story and character as by products of one another. The best thing about Rajneeti is its literary challenge and that isn’t saying much, considering the other films coming out of India today.

Jack Rico

By

2010/05/28 at 12:00am

George Romero Deconstructs Zombie Films

05.28.2010 | By |

George Romero Deconstructs Zombie Films

Meeting George A. Romero was among one of my many highlights in this profession. As a fan of the zombie and horror genres, I sat down with the 6’4 man who is arguably the creator of the zombie films. 

In the interview you are about to see, Romero opens up about the origins of his cultural roots (Romero was born in New York City to a Cuban-American father and a Lithuanian-American mother), the things he likes and dislikes of the ‘deadheads’, and what his favorite zombie films are. You’d be surprised to hear it’s not one of his own…

Kick back relax and enjoy 5 minutes with Mr. George A. Romero.

Note: There are Spanish subtitles for those Spanish speaking fans of Romero

His new movie ‘Survival of the Dead‘ takes place in a desperate, nightmarish world where the dead walk the earth, relentlessly attacking the living. It is the story of Plum Island – a beautiful refuge whose isolation allows two powerful families to maintain a semblance of order in the wake of the zombie apocalypse. But as the inhabitants slowly die off, the two clans become sharply divided: The O’Flynns believe that the undead must be destroyed without exception, while the Muldoons insist that afflicted loved ones be kept “alive” until a cure is found. Into this situation wander a small group of National Guard soldiers who, after robbing the protagonists of the previous film, have decided to strike out on their own in an effort to survive.

Karen Posada

By

2010/05/27 at 12:00am

Sex and the City 2

05.27.2010 | By |

Sex and the City 2

They weren’t kidding when they said SPARKLE. Sex and the City 2 was completely extravagant and exaggerated, which is what in a way made it fun. This movie does more justice to the series than the original movie did. It is not full of ‘Carrie’ drama, like the last one. Instead we get to go away on a fabulous trip with the girls. It is a Cinderella story, they have to live and enjoy their time quickly before the clock strikes midnight. We travel to a world of fantasy, it is predominantly what we go to the movies for anyway, to dream and live vicariously through others.

It all starts with Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) taking us back in time to when she met each one of her girlfriends; Charlotte York-Goldenblatt (Kristin Davis), Miranda Hobbes (Cynthia Nixon) and Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall). The first main scene reunites them at a fabulous gay wedding. To describe it as a sparkly dream wedding is an understatement. We see how the girls lives have changed, Carrie living the Mr. & Mrs. Married life, which to her is getting boring and she wants to bring the sparkle back in the relationship. Charlotte has 2 little girls, that are driving her crazy and has a super hot nanny that makes her worry her husband might stray. Miranda is still the same workaholic she’s always been, but soon realizes what she’s missing out on. Samantha is fighting off menopause by taking 1.000 natural pills and keeping up with her sexcapades. The only man in the movie that doesn’t have a short appearance is Mr. Big (John James Preston) (Chris Noth); we see how he’s still trying to please Carrie even after they are married. The other men are barely showed in the film at all, it is after all about the girls. The best guest appearance was the one of Liza Minnelli; it was perfect; she does a fun dance performance. Penélope Cruz also does a cameo, she looks gorgeous and sexy more so than in her own movies. 

I think what this movie gives the true fans of the show is a chance to spend more time with the girls, get away with them without all the drama. They go on a trip to a foreign land – Abu Dhabi, where Carrie bumps into her old flame Aidan (John Corbett), Samantha has a new set of hot boys to go crazy after, Charlotte gets a chance to rest from stressful motherhood and Miranda finds her fun self again. This trip brings them closer together and strengthens not only their relationship but the ones with their loved ones as well.  One of the most interesting scenes of the film is when the girls are discussing how they perceive Muslim women as well as themselves. There’s a hint of feminism with a sprinkle of humor, which makes the subject light hearted.

There are several aspects that take away from the movie, there are a lot of ridiculous scenes, which might be meant as just fun, but it makes one laugh out loud sarcastically. The characters have become pretty predictable, which is the reason why there should have been no movies after the show ended; it takes away from the element of surprise. The women have become a parody of themselves, which takes any essence of reality left away from them. Lastly, although there is character growth the sole purpose of this movie is to make money; there was no need for a sequel, there’s nothing new that we learn from the characters.

If you were a fan of the show I recommend you watch it but you can certainly wait for it to come out on DVD, unless you have the time and the money to kill at a movie theater (it is pretty lengthy, maybe a little too lengthy). Samantha is definitely what makes this movie fun; if it wasn’t for her friends restraining her, the movie would be hilarious! Truth is that we all have girlfriends that are like any one of these women, which is what made the show so successful and it is what makes it so fun to watch. Just take the movie for what it is, a world similar to ours except that it is nearly perfect and beautiful but it was created for the sole purpose of entertaining. Ladies my only advice is not to torture your boyfriend with this film, go watch it with your girls.

Jack Rico

By

2010/05/27 at 12:00am

A Man’s Perspective on ‘Sex and the City’

05.27.2010 | By |

A Man’s Perspective on 'Sex and the City'

Note: This article is filled with spoilers. It has in mind the person who saw the sequel. 

I had the chance to see the heavily anticipated screening of ‘Sex and the City 2’ a few days before its release in theaters nationwide. Just so you know, I am a fan of the show since its pilot debut on HBO in the summer of 1998 when the characters used to talk to the camera and men were bashing women. Since then, I’ve been hooked and have followed our four voyagers through the ups and downs of their lives – which is why the two SATC movies have crushed my expectations of what could have been – and am nauseating at a possible third installment.

If you remember, the success of the series was rooted in the most truthful deconstruction of us men to date; from how they REALLY felt about us through love, sex and relationships, to the usage of foul language to describe us. It was truly art imitating life. What about all those Romeo tactics we thought we were getting away with? Those too were microscopically analyzed and ravaged. These truths were so dead on about us guys, that it made me, as well as most men, tune in every week to learn more of us from the most poignant source, the only thing that mattered in the world – women. It was obsessively fascinating, it hit a chord that has had its strings pulled out with these uninventive story lines.

The two films in question lack the ‘sparkle’ that made men call each other at night and ask, “dude, is that what they really say when we put our pants back on?” In the original movie, the writer/director Michael Patrick King didn’t forget the testosterone, but he left out the fantasy and fun from it. It was depressing. The four characters were supposed to bitch, moan and vent about us all while using pithy humour, harsh irony and unrelenting wit. Instead he had the ladies inhabit a world we had never seen them in – reality. It was too real for them and us. Enter the repairing sequel – forget about reality, welcome the outrageous and the absurdity. King went the other extreme now. He left out the testosterone and brought in an extra truck load of estrogen, literally, just ask Samantha. By creating this female drenched story, he left us, the true fans of the original Sex and the City television series, out to dry. Don’t kid yourselves ladies, the show was a hit because us men were tuning in like they had solved the mystery behind penile enlargement or something. If they ever do a part three… oh no… for the love of us fans, I beg the producers, don’t do it! Don’t you dare do it! Why? Well, you left us straight men out of it and dedicated it to all things gay. A mix of both would’ve been fine. But to be explicitly frank, the magical and honest writing just isn’t there anymore and our protagonists are starting to finally show their graceful age. Even though they are fit and muscular, part of the fantasy is where they stay in their 30s’ and early 40’s forever. Take for instance Liza Minnelli. Her performance cover of Beyonce’s ‘Single Ladies’ was admirable for 64, but nevertheless a bit sad. At some point, you have to call it quits and be elegant on your way out. We’ll all remember you for the great times, never the bad ones.  As an example of uninspired writing, take Sarah Jessica Parker’s character Carrie Bradshaw. She is once again confused about her life and she’s what…48, closing in on 50 in the show? By this time, she, or anyone for that matter, should have a resounding sense of what they want and what kind of partner they want. It baffles me that the writers are still, after 12 years, making her seem naiveté (going to dinner with Aiden fully knowing what he had in mind), ungrateful (never being thankful with what she has with BIG, the moments of simplicity just aren’t good enough for her), mentally fragile (her need to constantly go out to forget she is aging, and almost ruining everyone else’s trip because her New Yorker review on her latest book “I Do or Do I?” was a flop). Carrie, you need to get your sh*t together. You have a great life, stop complaining for everything. You really are a walking representation of the old cliché – you don’t know what you have until you lose it.

For those of you that just want the characters to live forever, I suggest a reboot with a new crop of bevy beauties casted with Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Lindsay Lohan and Isla Fisher. This would make everyone happy and the new younger generation of SATC fans can feel what we all felt when the typed words of ‘Once upon a time…” began this crazy and wonderful ride we call ‘Sex and the City.’

Would love to hear your thoughts. Leave your comments below.

Jack Rico

By

2010/05/25 at 12:00am

Woody Allen announces cast for ‘Midnight in Paris’

05.25.2010 | By |

Woody Allen announces cast for 'Midnight in Paris'

Woody Allen announced today the full cast for MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, his latest film in pre-production. The film stars, in alphabetical order:  Kathy Bates, Adrien Brody, Carla Bruni, Marion Cotillard, Rachel McAdams, Michael Sheen and Owen Wilson. Co-starring in the film, in alphabetical order, are: Nina Arianda, Kurt Fuller, Tom Hiddleston, Mimi Kennedy, Alison Pill and Corey Stoll. The film shoots this summer in Paris.
 
MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is a romantic comedy that follows a family travelling to the city for business. The party includes a young engaged couple that has their lives transformed throughout the journey. The film celebrates a young man’s great love for Paris, and simultaneously explores the illusion people have that a life different from their own is better.
 
MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is produced by Letty Aronson, Steve Tenenbaum and Jaume Roures. It is part of a three-picture financing deal between Allen’s Gravier Productions and Mediapro, the Spain-based company which also funded Allen’s “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” and the upcoming “You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger” to be released domestically by Sony Pictures Classics this fall. Imagina International Sales is handling international sales for MIDNIGHT IN PARIS for most territories.

Select a Page